Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Out of a hundred trials, how many errors does your speaker verifier make?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2104.00732 v1 pith:67NYIUCC submitted 2021-04-01 cs.SD cs.LGeess.ASstat.ML

classification cs.SDcs.LGeess.ASstat.ML
keywords error-rateverifierbayesspeakerusercalibrationdecisionserror-rates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Out of a hundred trials, how many errors does your speaker verifier make? For the user this is an important, practical question, but researchers and vendors typically sidestep it and supply instead the conditional error-rates that are given by the ROC/DET curve. We posit that the user's question is answered by the Bayes error-rate. We present a tutorial to show how to compute the error-rate that results when making Bayes decisions with calibrated likelihood ratios, supplied by the verifier, and an hypothesis prior, supplied by the user. For perfect calibration, the Bayes error-rate is upper bounded by min(EER,P,1-P), where EER is the equal-error-rate and P, 1-P are the prior probabilities of the competing hypotheses. The EER represents the accuracy of the verifier, while min(P,1-P) represents the hardness of the classification problem. We further show how the Bayes error-rate can be computed also for non-perfect calibration and how to generalize from error-rate to expected cost. We offer some criticism of decisions made by direct score thresholding. Finally, we demonstrate by analyzing error-rates of the recently published DCA-PLDA speaker verifier.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Tandem spoofing-robust automatic speaker verification based on time-domain embeddings

    eess.AS 2024-12 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A gender-separated countermeasure built from probability-mass-function time embeddings improves tandem spoofing-robust speaker verification on ASVspoof2019, but only when thresholds are tuned on the evaluation set.

Pith tools